More myopic reporting from pundits

It's time to break up with VRCommentary: More than two years into the current virtual reality era, it feels like we've hit a brick wall.From the article: “Virtual reality may yet become a massive mainstream hit, but it's not going to happen with this generation of tech”

The author makes two false assumptions in this article:

1: That the current generation of VR has to be a “massive mainstream hit” right from the beginning; and

2: If it isn’t a massive mainstream hit from the beginning, then it’s a failure. (Well, those aren’t the only false assumptions he makes, but those are the main ones.)

Reality: The personal computer (originally called the “home computer” or the “microcomputer”) was for several years the exclusive domain of geeks and tinkerers. Early cellphones were so expensive with such crappy service that they faced stiff competition with pagers and were originally used only by businessmen.

As is is increasingly common with articles in the mainstream media, which are afraid of dissenting opinion, the original story doesn’t allow reader comments.

Comments

He's not wrong. But this reads distinctly like some one who had incorrect expectations for VR.

I knew from day negative 120 that I would only use my Rift for stationary experiences and 3D movies. I knew locomotion would never work well so I didn't even go there. Game developers should have known better than to try to employ locomotion in first gen VR. You need inside-out tracking for consumer locomotion. Yet here we are today with Skyrim in VR. Such epic fail. So to hear this guy talk about locomotion as a reason why VR failed is just dumb. That's like saying the Toyota Yaris is a failure because it can't race. Inappropriate application bro.

But yes, mobile VR is the future. Carmack has always been right about this. Santa Cruz will be the first good VR platform to support locomotion.

LOL - if VR as we know it right now was going to fail, it would have failed 5 years ago at the outset of the original DK1.

It might be a slow growing tech - as far as general consumer adoption goes. But it still has shown noticeable growth over the last 5 years - and the upcoming expansion into the mobile market with high quality headsets that don't require phones if successful should cement VR as a day to day experience for general consumers.

To this end I think that Oculus has the right strategy of developing the Go for general VR experiences like movie watching or Google Earth for non-gamers but also offering a game ready system with the Santa Cruz for the gamer audience as well.

The buy in for a premium VR experience is a little high for most people due to the need of a fairly powerful PC - which in a world where most people are moving away from computers and towards mobile platforms like tablets and cell phones is definitely a barrier to entry.

I only hope that as VR becomes more popular - that Oculus continues to support the PC VR scene that the Rift and Vive operate in. I am a total nerd when it comes to most things and VR is no exception, I want to be able to tinker and play with off-market software and mods for games. I still like the official stuff too - but I mean, being able to play No One Lives Forever or Doom 3 in VR is incredible, and one of the reasons I bought into VR at this stage is because it is possible to get those experiences.

But the biggest issue holding VR back is the games, or lack thereof. It's true, there are actually hundreds of virtual reality games available from Steam, Oculus and even Microsoft's Windows App Store. The vast majority are simple low-budget indie projects that range from pure dreck to forgettable filler, with just a handful of gems along the way (and a few interesting non-game experiments). That's because the big game companies -- the publishers behind hits from Grand Theft Auto to Call of Duty to Madden NFL -- have barely dipped a toe into the VR waters.

For EA'sStar Wars Battlefront and Activision'sCall of Duty: Infinite Warfare, impressive VR levels were released as free downloadable content. When both those games got sequels for the 2017 holiday season, neither got a new VR level. That doesn't say much about how these big game-makers feel about the commercial appeal of virtual reality.

Yeah. And if those companies had put serious investment into VR games then the author still would have complained about locomotion. He is trapped by his incorrect expectations of first gen VR, and he wants the big developers to be trapped as well.

It's time to break up with VRCommentary: More than two years into the current virtual reality era, it feels like we've hit a brick wall.From the article: “Virtual reality may yet become a massive mainstream hit, but it's not going to happen with this generation of tech”

The author makes two false assumptions in this article:

1: That the current generation of VR has to be a “massive mainstream hit” right from the beginning; and

2: If it isn’t a massive mainstream hit from the beginning, then it’s a failure. (Well, those aren’t the only false assumptions he makes, but those are the main ones.)

Reality: The personal computer (originally called the “home computer” or the “microcomputer”) was for several years the exclusive domain of geeks and tinkerers. Early cellphones were so expensive with such crappy service that they faced stiff competition with pagers and were originally used only by businessmen.

As is is increasingly common with articles in the mainstream media, which are afraid of dissenting opinion, the original story doesn’t allow reader comments.

Any organization that claims to report on tech and does it negatively that has no comment section on their articles are always terrible. I agree, the author doesn't want those comments on because if this article is any indication, he's terrible at what he does and doesn't want to be called out for being an idiot.

I won't be interested in mobil VR until they have the equivilant of a 1080 or better GPU in them and they're affordable. Which would mean $500 or less for the entire thing, GPU and HMD in one. But I want to play DCS which is locked to an actual computer, they'd never waste time developing it for a headset, where would you even install 60 gb worth of content on a headset with no computer?

I hope they keep both PCVR and Mobil, but come on. GPUs are a rip off, nobody is going to pay $1,000 for a card to add into a $700 computer they don't already have so they can be tethered to a box like an Iron lung. Money dictates everything, I don't think consumers will even really make serious considerations when GPUs are so expensive. Nobody even owns computers these days, it's all tablets and cell phones.

I saw this posted on Facebook and the overwhelming response was that... CNet just lost all credibility lol

I think CNet hit their own brick wall since they used to be good at Product Reviews but now the world doesn't need them anymore thanks to the monstrosity known as: Amazon.

CNet's services made sense back when there were multiple storefront competitors out there. Having a centralized review system was essential. But now Amazon is a centralized seller for "all the things," and their reviews are more meaningful than most outside sources, including CNet.

As such... CNet has resorted to being just another source of "clickbait" articles; another victim of the Amazon enterprise.

Case in point: Amazon has launched their own VR Platform, and it won't be long before consumers across the globe will be able to traverse the entire retail inventory inside a Virtual World. CNet will need to get more creative with their headlines when that happens.

He's not wrong. But this reads distinctly like some one who had incorrect expectations for VR.

I knew from day negative 120 that I would only use my Rift for stationary experiences and 3D movies.

i am not sure why you would think this........ there are some games where locomotion is not great but others where it works superbly well...... From other suns is a good example. expected to have to use comfort mode but ended up going full loco and will never look back.

other games not so good... my experience is generally steamVR is more prone to sickness (in the rift) than native oculus but this could just be the game s i have tried, that is not to say steamvr cant do proper locomotion

If your outside VR looking in you can say so far VR is s failure. If Oculus and HTC are selling 500,000 units a year that in itself tells you PCVR is not doing well.

Reasons? Price of GPU are at record highs forcing gamers on limited budgets to choose 2D gaming over VR. The majority of PC gamers run 1060s and that’s just not cutting it for VR.

Fresnel lens are horrible it’s enough to put anyone off and shocking we went from DK2 clear lens to CV1 and Vive with horrible artifice such as Godrays and rings. People are modding their Vives with Gear VR lens so theirs no reason why we needed Fresnel in the first place.

Games are coming now with Bethesda leading the way but all future games need a VR mode. Relying on VR only games is bad for VR. We need to get out of this 2D v VR mentality. A game is a game wether it’s 2D or VR. One if Oculuses failures for example is its VR only and does nothing for PC in general. Sony on the other hand are doing it right with VR modes on existing AAA games like RE7.

Expecting people to make the leap from 2D to VR overnight isn’t going to happen.

This is why Oculus can’t deliver PCVR to the masses. They’re VR only. They’re business model is to ignore half the VR community. They promote exclusivity and have a disregard for the other 99.5% of PC gamers.

Well, there's always a tendency to write articles that are stories. In most cases that means praising things that are new because the story teller is spreading the word, or criticizing things that aren't knew if they haven't taken over the world just yet... or criticizing them if they have taken over the world cos that's an even bigger story. Anyway, I'll take every story as I see it. In this case, the story teller isn't completely wrong.

He says the biggest problem is that the 'big game companies have barely dipped a toe into the VR waters' and I think that's a fair comment. We've had some great games which have been more than enough for me (and most of you I think) to consider myself lucky to have good VR kit to play them on.

But, I'm disappointed with Codemasters not including VR in anything since DiRT Rally. I'd like to have seen a proper full game from Crytek as they've proven themselves with The Climb but I doubt the next Crysis will have VR despite their development of Cryengine V.... and Bethesda are just teasing us with adaptations of existing games sold at full price.

I'm an enthusiast, as are most people here and I think I've always had fairly realistic expectations of how quickly VR would take hold and how quickly games devs would get involved.... so for me, everything is pretty much on-track. But I think many people need reassurance that the big devs are on-board before shelling out several hundred quid on a headset & PC upgrade. I think that will come but it's not happened yet and I don't think reassurance comes from adapting old games to VR regardless of how good the results are. They need to see a good selection of new games having VR options. For those people, VR may seem like it's not happened yet. The problem is that we need those people to adopt because that leads to the big devs deciding there's enough profit to be made from creating new content.

Cheaper PC VR is the other side of the equation. People need less reassurance if they don't have to spend so much money on the kit... or the PC.

That's why, for CV2, I'm a firm believer in not wanting the huge FOV and resolution increases we're seeing touted for some next-gen headsets. Reasonable increases yes, but not the FOV leaps of the Pimax... or 4K that some are touting, not unless fovated rendering keeps the PC load down to the levels that current top-range PCs are capable of.

That's why, for CV2, I'm a firm believer in not wanting the huge FOV and resolution increases we're seeing touted for some next-gen headsets. Reasonable increases yes, but not the FOV leaps of the Pimax... or 4K that some are touting, not unless fovated rendering keeps the PC load down to the levels that current top-range PCs are capable of.

That is one of the reasons a lot of companies want to wait. Gen One has a few problems that gen Two really needs to fix such as lowering the requirements to run VR in the first place, looking better over all, easy setup, and something everyone will want to run out and buy on.

Eye tracking/FOV rendering is going to be the gold goose everyone is running after to find right now. Once we have that - that is going to be a BIG step forward in what we can support in the future. As I said in the past, FOV rendering + Upscaling is going to be a big deal in dealing with the PC requirements going in the future. Basically - it's the true to run current gen One specs at a gen Two level (either it be 2k or 4k or more using that upscaler). With that said - it has the added benefit of allowing it all to look better and that means you can push/sell that eye candy people love and want in their games.

The bigger questions are:

How can we make the setup easier for people, but still allow the same play area that outside in tracking allows? Right now we are still fighting the idea that VR needs a big play area to be in compare to sitting down game that we currently.

What can VR do for me that a normal computer can't? What will be easier to do in VR/AR that I can take on the "go" maybe that VR allows? Idk - this one is harder to figure out than the other two. I talk about this a few times already - I don't think VR games are going to really push VR to its max alone. Really, I think this is where the doom and gloom comes from mostly. I don't think VR will despair and I can only really see it growing - but to make it grow faster it does have to replace what another competing technology is offering in that space to really max on the potential customers that are out there.

Then again, I just watch 5hrs of netflix in my headset with out having to get out of bed:) so I can happily say VR is not a waste at all and is the future for people like me that want to watch something in peace instead of having everyone over your shoulder watching with you:)

I see both sides - I am happy with gen one for what it is - I just know gen two really needs to fix some of the current gen one problems and that will help gain more tracking for VR over all. What areas to really focus on is hard to really guess. We could focus more on the software more than anything, but then people will always say the hardware is not good enough and if we focus on the hardware people will always say the software isn't good enough to keep up with the hardware.

I think that's a interesting point @Mradr, I can understand HTC promoting the Vive as being better for a large play area as that must have seemed like a good selling point.

But are people drawn towards kit that can apparently cope better large areas... or are they put off by not having large areas to play in if they think that's what VR needs! I think Oculus probably got the emphasis right.

And Crytek not only has more projects coming to VR, but there are independent developers using the Cryengine that openly discussing bringing their games to VR.

Yep, that's why I want to see more from Crytek, because they've emphasised the V in their V engine... but my concern is they stick to producing great but short experiences along the lines of The Robinsons, rather than include VR as on option within full-blown games like Crysis.... I guess we'll see!

He's not wrong. But this reads distinctly like some one who had incorrect expectations for VR.

I knew from day negative 120 that I would only use my Rift for stationary experiences and 3D movies.

i am not sure why you would think this........ there are some games where locomotion is not great but others where it works superbly well...... From other suns is a good example. expected to have to use comfort mode but ended up going full loco and will never look back.

other games not so good... my experience is generally steamVR is more prone to sickness (in the rift) than native oculus but this could just be the game s i have tried, that is not to say steamvr cant do proper locomotion

For me the primary concern is immersion which is hurt by stationary locomotion. You can decouple virtual from physical locomotion and have a good game experience, but you might as well just be sitting in front of a 3D monitor. For me that disconnect means I am not feeling immersed at all despite what might be a quality game experience.

When you compromise at the cost of immersion you are undermining the main value proposition for VR. I would rather play in 2D at that point.

If your outside VR looking in you can say so far VR is s failure. If Oculus and HTC are selling 500,000 units a year that in itself tells you PCVR is not doing well.

Reasons? Price of GPU are at record highs forcing gamers on limited budgets to choose 2D gaming over VR. The majority of PC gamers run 1060s and that’s just not cutting it for VR.

Fresnel lens are horrible it’s enough to put anyone off and shocking we went from DK2 clear lens to CV1 and Vive with horrible artifice such as Godrays and rings. People are modding their Vives with Gear VR lens so theirs no reason why we needed Fresnel in the first place.

Games are coming now with Bethesda leading the way but all future games need a VR mode. Relying on VR only games is bad for VR. We need to get out of this 2D v VR mentality. A game is a game wether it’s 2D or VR. One if Oculuses failures for example is its VR only and does nothing for PC in general. Sony on the other hand are doing it right with VR modes on existing AAA games like RE7.

Expecting people to make the leap from 2D to VR overnight isn’t going to happen.

This is why Oculus can’t deliver PCVR to the masses. They’re VR only. They’re business model is to ignore half the VR community. They promote exclusivity and have a disregard for the other 99.5% of PC gamers.

Flame suit on. Extinguishers at the ready.

no flames from me...just mild disagreement. i agree with *some* of your points, however you seem to forget this "open" company bethesda you talk of do not even support the biggest selling HMD on steam for 2 of their 3 VR titles......

sure, it does seem they learned their lesson with skyrim but it still shows a huge lack of forsite... either that or they are not as open as you think.I do agree with you that hopefully more mainstream games will support VR from the get go - games like Elite, pCARS, AC have been doing this for years now, it is nothing new.... but that does NOT mean therir isnt a place for proper VR experiences without the limitations that most of the bolt on VR games have.

compare fallout or even the much love skyrim to from other suns for instance...... yes Fallout may be by far the better game, but its VR implementation is seriously lacking, you cant grab items with you hands, or open doors etc, you couldnt even look down the scopes of guns at 1st (later patched in after much complaint).

so yes, definitely more of these kinds of things please AS WELL AS proper built for VR games which actually use the tech fully and are not artificially limited by having to support a flat screen too... and if this means a more limited VR title with 100% vr support, but with less out and out content or a shorter experience, personally i am fine with that. there is room for both types of experience in my library.

As of right now btw steam (valve) doesnt make games they just sell em, so they are not doing much at all to support VR. At least Oculus are giving something back to VR.... and IME revive is every pit as good as steamVR is - indeed possibly better, imo steamVR on the rift is a bit pants, and i hear its even worse on windows VR.

BTW a gtx 1060 offers a great experience for just about every single title on the oculus store. i cant comment about the vive however.....

Then again, I just watch 5hrs of netflix in my headset with out having to get out of bed:) so I can happily say VR is not a waste at all and is the future for people like me that want to watch something in peace instead of having everyone over your shoulder watching with you:)

I watch a movie or TV shows in VR every night - usually about 2 to 3 hours worth. It is hugely addictive - and was one of the main reasons I bought the Rift. I will say that it makes drinking a chore - but with a straw it's not to bad and eating candy isn't to bad either, but I can't imagine eating anything like chips, pop corn or something messy like pizza in VR as I wouldn't want my headset ending up looking like a greasy nightmare. LOL

That is one of the reasons a lot of companies want to wait. Gen One has a few problems that gen Two really needs to fix such as lowering the requirements to run VR in the first place, looking better over all, easy setup, and something everyone will want to run out and buy on.

How can we make the setup easier for people, but still allow the same play area that outside in tracking allows? Right now we are still fighting the idea that VR needs a big play area to be in compare to sitting down game that we currently.

I think the requirements for entering PC VR will eventually get lower but I doubt that will be in the 2nd generation - as far as easy setup, I didn't really have any issues setting up my Rift sensors or play area. Mind you I don't have 3 sensors and just did the standard 2 sensor desk setup for 180 degree standing VR.

I honestly think that room-scale has scared some people away from VR though - I mean I had to rearrange my room entirely to make sure I had enough room to play (I have a 5ft by 5ft play area) and I had no problem doing so. But I know a lot of people that are pickier about the arrangement of their living / working space than I am.

Besides - I find that walking around in my small space really doesn't feel that great, I mean I am always conscience of my cable and room when I try it and I don't think that a bigger play area would necessarily negate my misgivings about it. I much prefer just free locomotion using the thumb stick and standing in place - it takes me about 10 minutes to get immersed in the experience and forget that I am in my room but because I am not having to worry about the cord, walls, my desk, etc. once I do get immersed I am able to stay in that zone for a good while.

Obviously sit down experiences like Big Screen do not have any of the problems that standing / roomscale VR has in as far as they don't take a long time to immerse yourself in and I have never found myself worrying about the outside world while in them.

That's
why, for CV2, I'm a firm believer in not wanting the huge FOV and
resolution increases we're seeing touted for some next-gen headsets.
Reasonable increases yes, but not the FOV leaps of the Pimax... or 4K
that some are touting, not unless fovated rendering keeps the PC load
down to the levels that current top-range PCs are capable of.

I think that FOV improvements could be made without huge
resolution increases. I personally would love to have my peripheral
vision fully encompassed by the headset - but I don't see it happening
in the 2nd generation to the degree that I want it.

Unfortunately
I probably will not buy into the 2nd generation at launch -
skyrocketing GPUs means that I am likely going to have to shell out more
than I'd like to upgrade my GPU either at the end of this year or
beginning next and the thought of having to buy another VR headset right
away isn't something I can really make a good case for. So I am mostly
looking forward to the gains I will see in my current Rift when I
upgrade my graphics card.

Besides I am due to upgrade my
recording equipment - and the Midas M32 is not a cheap upgrade and at
this point in time I want that more than I want a new GPU or better VR
headset.

I think that's a interesting point @Mradr, I can understand HTC promoting the Vive as being better for a large play area as that must have seemed like a good selling point.

But are people drawn towards kit that can apparently cope better large areas... or are they put off by not having large areas to play in if they think that's what VR needs! I think Oculus probably got the emphasis right.

Yep I think that Room Scale is almost the most gimmicky thing about VR at the moment - I just don't find walking around in VR very realistic feeling and it breaks my own immersion a little. I do think there are experiences that could be developed for it that would be cool - but I think that they would need to be smaller well produced experiences for VR Arcades more so than anything for HomeVR

I don't have a very large area to play with so all of my thoughts on it are based on being able to walk with in a 5ft by 5ft area which is limiting - but I really do find walking around in VR distracting from immersion because I am consciously aware of my physical surroundings and I don't think that a larger play area would make me any less conscious of them.

If your outside VR looking in you can say so far VR is s failure. If Oculus and HTC are selling 500,000 units a year that in itself tells you PCVR is not doing well.

Reasons? Price of GPU are at record highs forcing gamers on limited budgets to choose 2D gaming over VR. The majority of PC gamers run 1060s and that’s just not cutting it for VR.

Fresnel lens are horrible it’s enough to put anyone off and shocking we went from DK2 clear lens to CV1 and Vive with horrible artifice such as Godrays and rings. People are modding their Vives with Gear VR lens so theirs no reason why we needed Fresnel in the first place.

Games are coming now with Bethesda leading the way but all future games need a VR mode. Relying on VR only games is bad for VR. We need to get out of this 2D v VR mentality. A game is a game wether it’s 2D or VR. One if Oculuses failures for example is its VR only and does nothing for PC in general. Sony on the other hand are doing it right with VR modes on existing AAA games like RE7.

Expecting people to make the leap from 2D to VR overnight isn’t going to happen.

This is why Oculus can’t deliver PCVR to the masses. They’re VR only. They’re business model is to ignore half the VR community. They promote exclusivity and have a disregard for the other 99.5% of PC gamers.

Flame suit on. Extinguishers at the ready.

I agree that the crypto currency market that has caused sky high GPU costs have hurt the market a little - but I don't think it is killing PC VR.

I don't think many major developers are going to just tack on VR to their 2d games - and I don't think that Oculus should focus any of their VR only experiences into a 2d experience with VR included. There are huge differences between what you can do in a 2d game and what you can do in a VR game.

Bethesda has shown that it is possible to create an immersive VR experience built on systems that work in a 2d game - but I haven't seen a VR game that has been brought back to the 2d space in a way that has captured all the nuances possible in a VR space.

If your outside VR looking in you can say so far VR is s failure. If Oculus and HTC are selling 500,000 units a year that in itself tells you PCVR is not doing well.

Reasons? Price of GPU are at record highs forcing gamers on limited budgets to choose 2D gaming over VR. The majority of PC gamers run 1060s and that’s just not cutting it for VR.

Fresnel lens are horrible it’s enough to put anyone off and shocking we went from DK2 clear lens to CV1 and Vive with horrible artifice such as Godrays and rings. People are modding their Vives with Gear VR lens so theirs no reason why we needed Fresnel in the first place.

Games are coming now with Bethesda leading the way but all future games need a VR mode. Relying on VR only games is bad for VR. We need to get out of this 2D v VR mentality. A game is a game wether it’s 2D or VR. One if Oculuses failures for example is its VR only and does nothing for PC in general. Sony on the other hand are doing it right with VR modes on existing AAA games like RE7.

Expecting people to make the leap from 2D to VR overnight isn’t going to happen.

This is why Oculus can’t deliver PCVR to the masses. They’re VR only. They’re business model is to ignore half the VR community. They promote exclusivity and have a disregard for the other 99.5% of PC gamers.

Flame suit on. Extinguishers at the ready.

Does this forum have a block feature that will omit everything a particular poster posts? I'm getting sick of reading some peoples broken record nonsense.

We’re maybe 12-18 months away from PS5. What happens when Sony release PSVR 2 which we all know they’re working which uses Foveated rendering and better controllers? Every advantage PC has over consoles could be wiped out. With Sony’s aggressive pricing and quality AAA titles anyone that can’t afford £400-500 on a GPU will undoubtedly switch from PCVR to console.

As long as crypto currency is a thing PCVR is going to suffer and Sony prosper.

We’re maybe 12-18 months away from PS5. What happens when Sony release PSVR 2 which we all know they’re working which uses Foveated rendering and better controllers? Every advantage PC has over consoles could be wiped out. With Sony’s aggressive pricing and quality AAA titles anyone that can’t afford £400-500 on a GPU will undoubtedly switch from PCVR to console.

As long as crypto currency is a thing PCVR is going to suffer and Sony prosper.

IF that happens then it is simple... i buy a PS5VR... but you are putting the cart before the horse right now this moment there is nothing to suggest this is gonna happen and 2 years is an eternity in electronics... anyone remember the scorpio announcement..... project scorpio was going to redefine gaming which a 4k gaming console with VR to rival any pc...

when it launched, it was a mild upgrade over the ps4pro with no sign of ANY VR.

Sony always overhype their machines, often with bullshots far worse than alien colonial marines even, and that is saying something.

then, sure i will give you cheaper initial outlay, but then add in 40 quid a year online and at least a 10 quid premium on the majority of titles.

falken76 said:Does this forum have a block feature that will omit everything a particular poster posts? I'm getting sick of reading some peoples broken record nonsense.

Click on his name, and next to the "message" button there is an Avatar icon with an arrow pointing down. Click it and then select "Ignore." I already did that after considering DaftnDirect's advice multiple times. It's a shame that so many Rift owners have to put one non-Rifter owner on Ignore; but maybe one day the Mod's will get tired of that person enough to give the rest of us a real break from the trolling and baiting.

As for the bad argument made... Oculus already delivered to the "masses" by powering the GearVR, which is more than just games. The Facebook-Oculus model embraces the full spectrum of consumers globally, unlike the Vive Pro which only targets the Prosumer and the Pimax which only targets the most extreme of enthusiasts (and also the Prosumer).

With GO, SC, and the Rift... Facebook-Oculus is the only company targeting every wok of life with VR. To argue otherwise in 2018 is little more than intentional antagonizing rhetoric.

Lastly, every major VR company has their own exclusive storefront, including Google, HTC, Microsoft, and Sony.

Hopefully if more people put a certain someone on "Ignore," the less we will all feel compelled to keep pointing out the same obvious facts in an effort to 'combat' the same monotonous negative soundbites.

If your outside VR looking in you can say so far VR is s failure. If Oculus and HTC are selling 500,000 units a year that in itself tells you PCVR is not doing well.

Reasons? Price of GPU are at record highs forcing gamers on limited budgets to choose 2D gaming over VR. The majority of PC gamers run 1060s and that’s just not cutting it for VR.

Fresnel lens are horrible it’s enough to put anyone off and shocking we went from DK2 clear lens to CV1 and Vive with horrible artifice such as Godrays and rings. People are modding their Vives with Gear VR lens so theirs no reason why we needed Fresnel in the first place.

Games are coming now with Bethesda leading the way but all future games need a VR mode. Relying on VR only games is bad for VR. We need to get out of this 2D v VR mentality. A game is a game wether it’s 2D or VR. One if Oculuses failures for example is its VR only and does nothing for PC in general. Sony on the other hand are doing it right with VR modes on existing AAA games like RE7.

Expecting people to make the leap from 2D to VR overnight isn’t going to happen.

This is why Oculus can’t deliver PCVR to the masses. They’re VR only. They’re business model is to ignore half the VR community. They promote exclusivity and have a disregard for the other 99.5% of PC gamers.

Flame suit on. Extinguishers at the ready.

Does this forum have a block feature that will omit everything a particular poster posts? I'm getting sick of reading some peoples broken record nonsense.

If it’s nonsense why is Oculus only selling 500,000 Rifts a year? When Ready Player one was realessed why didn’t gamexsales go up?

When SkyrimVR is released which is loved by Vivers and Rifters alike and only sells 30,000 copies in 2 weeks what message does that send to Devs dedicated to VR?

CCP have already quit the VR scene because it’s unsustainable.

But it if you want to put your head in the sand and pretend everything’s roses in PCVR land after 2 years of stats then be my guest.

@SimonSays28, I think there are 2 groups of people now, the enthusiasts who've already adopted and those who are waiting to see how things turn out, primarily waiting because of the price of entry.

Personally I hope gen 2 caters for the second group even though I'm probably sitting somewhere between the two (I don't have much in the way of disposable income even though I'd count myself as an enthusiast!).

I just think gen 2 needs to concentrate on the non-adopters if it's to grow & mature so I'm going to stick with my wish for maybe a 100% increase in resolution and maybe a 20% increase in FOV... and a 0% increase in price! I'm fully aware that just about everyone here will have different figures though but we've all adopted!

I just think gen 2 needs to concentrate on the non-adopters if it's to grow & mature so I'm going to stick with my wish for maybe a 100% increase in resolution and maybe a 20% increase in FOV... and a 0% increase in price! I'm fully aware that just about everyone here will have different figures though but we've all adopted!

Agreed, and this is where I turn to Microsoft - @snowdog's favorite company lol

The moment that MS turns their Microsoft Office Suite in to a VR-driven application... that is when the business and corporate enterprise are forced to become VR-dependent and VR-centric. And if VR is woven directly in to the MS Operating System's (particularly their Server OS's) then Facebook-Oculus will finally be getting some real competition.

Right now Facebook-Oculus have free reign on the market since there is no one really able to compete with success on a global scale. But MS has the potential to move the battlefield, so to speak.

Here is how I predict that things will play out over the next 5 years:

Facebook-Oculus reach over one-hundred million users between GO, SC, and the Rift; with a bulk of the interest in the Social Media VR experiences.

Microsoft takes over business VR applications.

Amazon launches VR for server infrastructure.

Sony remains the best choice for Console VR.

Everyone else will be playing catch-up and or vying for the scraps left over. But what a fantastic VR ecosystem a future like that will provide for those of us in for the long-haul!